I missed this initially when Anthony floated the idea on an “unthreaded” post and got a 63% yes vote in an online poll.
The wattsupwiththat.com blog almost fills that role now as it is.
While I can see all the contra reasons why not – I hope Anthony goes ahead and does it – and that many prominent people join him. I am interested to hear what readers think.
Most media climate reporting is just rehashing press releases, which is one important reason sceptic viewpoints don’t get much press, because no press releases from a recognized sceptic source.
I don’t think Anthony has in mind is defining what a ‘real climate sceptic’ believes, which IMO would devisive and counter productive.
I have tried several times get the various realist/sceptical organisations (eg Galileo, climate sceptics party, carbon sense coalition etc) together but each with a slightly different agenda have not been willing © to form a coalition
Addendum – the Australian movements.
Geoff:
try the IPA? They’re on side, have the ability to get to some politicians and get pieces into the main newspapers.
Donna Laframboise”: I called myself a ‘climate rebel.’
Those of us who dissent from mainstream thinking about climate change truly are voices in the wilderness, analogous to the Rebel Alliance in the fictional Star Wars’ universe. Scattered, underfunded, thin-on-the-ground – that’s us.
On the other hand, the forces assembled against us are massive. For many years now, the United Nations, national as well as local governments, Fortune 500 corporations, nearly all of the media, and activists from small church groups to multinational players have vigorously promoted the view that human activity has triggered dangerous climate change.”
nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/10/22/climate-rebel-reporting-in/
In the latest spoof video of Lewandowsky, they point to the map and claim they are surrounded by different ‘opinions’.
They can’t see where the next attack is coming from.
Or we can provide a target. A nice, big one. Not my definitive opinion, but just an observation.
After years of slamming the Warmers for their Consensus Anthony wants to create an org that will almost have to have its own consensus?? Yeah, that is real smart. As smart as attacking people who look at different data and come to different conclusions. Anthony is fast reaching his use by date.
Why would they have to have a consensus?? How is the media going to talk about a group which has a different story for every member they talk to?? Yes, they would HAVE TO have a consensus on what they would tell the press and put in press releases or be ignored as a bunch of yahoos at best.
The press is not interested in Science. They are interested in their agenda and/or good stories that bring in readers. They will crucify a sceptic group that is not tightly controlled to advance their agenda and make themselves appear to be smarter.
Agree with kuhnkat
Forming a sceptics organisation (even if that’s possible) allows the meeja plenty of free kicks about the Flat Earth Denier Society. It also allows them to demand that said organisation prove its’ case (ie. reversing the null hypothesis, as Trenberth is shrilly advocating)
A very dumb idea. But I’ve always thought Watts is a box head anyway
Anthony has removed the..’ solar system influences climate bloggers from his blog.
Discussion is banned on planetary physics and the earths climate and in particular the role of the barycentre which he detests.
No way should AGW skeptics join his new organisation of the official sceptics viewpoint. His scientific method is already corrupted by his own official position..
He wants to control the skeptic viewpoint?.. LOL..In his dreams..
AGW skeptics are critical thinkers..They should be left to audit the research independently..
Really !! Exactly WHAT is HIS AGENDA?
Agree with Kuhnkat, Ianl8888 & weathercycles, sceptics are sceptical over a range of issues. Australians have always been weary of authority and have been supporters of free speech. I can understand that on a blog some commentators need to be limited and made to keep on topic but to ban a group that is interested in cycles which maybe influenced by planetary and satellite movements is drastic. I like Tallbloke’s blog, I read Lubos’s blog occasionally but feel he does not understand basic engineering science, I have commented on Prof Claes Johnson’s blog (claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/), ( I think he is one of the cleverest bloggers who reads a lot of historical science texts, I have noted how he has broadened his views & his mathematical analyses by taking in the views of a range of commenters – he was one of the original Sky Dragons but I believe has pulled out and is way ahead of other scientists. If his computational analysis of flight (secretofflight.wordpress.com/) gets around more of the traditional thinkers he could be in line for a Nobel Prize ) The posts and comments at JoNova and Jennifer Mahorasy are always worth reading JoNova’s lifetime achievement is well deserved.
i don’t think we should have an organised skeptics organisation.
its much better to do it like anthony and warwick do – just keep throwing stuff at these scientists – eventually something we say will be proved to be right. just because they are scientists dosnt mean they are right all the time. look at galileo, newton and einstein, their were things that they were wrong about.
pne day warwick will be proved right about something and then we can stick it to the government.
ben k
warwick I read this from greg hunt “the Abbott government’s official position is that greenhouse emissions created by humans are contributing to the dangerous warming of the planet, and that it must do something about it” i thought they were on our side. how come they arent doing what they were elected to do
will you write something about this?
ben k
A “consensus of climate sceptics” – don’t know if that could work. Surely the inanity of the “97% of climate scientists agree” mime isn’t something that sceptics should risk emulating.
There are many sceptic blogs, including this one, doing a great job in exposing the CAGW cult for the fraud that it is. WUWT deservedly reaches a huge readership and anything that could lead the defining of an “official sceptic policies” I think risks going down the same slippery slope that has seen government funded climate science become the corrupt mess that it is.
I doubt very much that a “Climate Skeptics” group would ever work. Its like forming a hobby group of people who don’t collect stamps – they may be united about one thing but they disagree on practically everything else. Atheists are the same – they might agree that there is no God or gods, but in every other respect they have nothing in common, politically or anything else.
Consensuses are a political construction not a scientific one, and climate science has more than enough politics as it is. For me Wattsupwiththat is about freedom to dissent and to speak one’s mind, but its not a political blog. A few of its commenters propose all sorts of craziness and I find that to be the worst aspect of the blog.
Often a political grouping tends to get defined by its extremes rather than its core position, particularly if the aims of the group are derided in the mainstream media.
I would not join such a grouping. I prefer the diversity of viewpoints without some organizing structure, despite the claims of a few scientists that there already is one.